True viability of multi-tabling?

[emonrad87]

[ QUOTE ]
anyone else share a simliar viewpoint on multi-tabling?



[/ QUOTE ]

Hell no. And many people on this forum make a much higher hourly rate MT'ing than the majority of people make at "real" work.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
In my experience, multi-tabling 3 tables makes it impossible to truly know the players at each table.

[/ QUOTE ]

At lower limits, this is irrelevant. The preponderance of bad players more than makes up for the lack of player knowledge.

If you have the ability to multitable, you're losing a lot of profit by just playing on one table at the lower limits, even with the increased focus.

[Freakin]

Lets just say for example that at a single table you were able to sustain an ungodly 5BB/100 over 100k hands or so. As your add more tables, this would likely decrease. Many players here are able to consistently beat games for 2BB/100 across 2,4,6, or 8+ tables. If you're playing at least 3 tables at 2BB/100, you're easily clearing the 5BB/100 you're making at your single table (since you're playing 3x as fast), and this is a rather extreme example. Programs like PlayerView allow you to have stat-based reads on all players are all tables. Playing more tables is what allows persons with average bankrolls to play professionally. To achieve the same kind of returns on a single table in a B&M, they would have a play a table that is 2,4,6, or 8+ times thier current limit, and that table would likely come with increased difficulty. So no, it's not more efficient for a skilled player to play a single table.

Freakin

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Playing more tables is what allows persons with average bankrolls to play professionally.

[/ QUOTE ]

It also allows just average players to make more per hour playing low-limit online than many excellent mid-limit B&M professionals make (for the time being, at least).

[jwombles]

LOL I knew this thread would get a big response.

I was averaging 2 BB / 100 before I tried MT-ing and after trying it for a while it dropped my BB/100 down to 1.5. I just can't take advantage of players when I don't know their tendancies.

As I said, I know that there are 2+2ers who MT and I guess average more than 1 BB per 100 hands. I don't believe that anyone is able to avg. 2bb per 100 at 8 tables. It's hard enough at 1 table. And, if they are doing it, it's a streak that will not last in my opinion.

I can't imagine being able to truly win 2 BB/100 on 8 tables.

PS How do you quote someone in your response?

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe that anyone is able to avg. 2bb per 100 at 8 tables. It's hard enough at 1 table. And, if they are doing it, it's a streak that will not last in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

With all due respect, 2BB/100 isn't that spectacular of a win rate for online poker. It's equivalent to about 0.6BB/hr for B&M play. I can assure you that there are many people playing four to eight online tables making over 2BB/100.

[jwombles]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe that anyone is able to avg. 2bb per 100 at 8 tables. It's hard enough at 1 table. And, if they are doing it, it's a streak that will not last in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

With all due respect, 2BB/100 isn't that spectacular of a win rate for online poker. It's equivalent to about 0.6BB/hr for B&M play. I can assure you that there are many people playing four to eight online tables making over 2BB/100.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe so, I don't know b/c I can't verify it. I think that anyone who can focus on 8 tables and average 2 bb/100 might just be a genius, or hitting a run of great cards or something, no offense.

Getting back to the main point of the thread, my goal is not to go bug eyed mt-ing 4-8 tables at micro limits, but to move up to higher limit tables. I feel that the best way for me to do this is to focus on one table and getting to know how to read playedrs etc.

And btw, there is no way that anyone with 8 tables open on their computer is doing anything other than rote mechanics of check call raise w/o any regard to the type of players at the table. There simply isn't enough time! You would be folded out of the other 4 or 5 tables you were playing at.

Which, gets me back to the point that when you are doing more than 3 or 4 tables, you are really out of touch with what's truly going on in the game if there are a couple of experienced players at that table paying attention.

[Six_of_One]

[ QUOTE ]

I was averaging 2 BB / 100 before I tried MT-ing and after trying it for a while it dropped my BB/100 down to 1.5.

[/ QUOTE ]

Think about what you just said here. Nobody is disputing that your BB/100 will drop when multi-tabling. However, your hourly rate will increase. If your BB/100 went down from 2 to 1.5 when you played two tables, then you're still making 50% more money per hour, because you're playing twice as many hands. By your own numbers, your results have gotten better through multi-tabling, not worse.

[jwombles]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I was averaging 2 BB / 100 before I tried MT-ing and after trying it for a while it dropped my BB/100 down to 1.5.

[/ QUOTE ]

Think about what you just said here. Nobody is disputing that your BB/100 will drop when multi-tabling. However, your hourly rate will increase. If your BB/100 went down from 2 to 1.5 when you played two tables, then you're still making 50% more money per hour, because you're playing twice as many hands. By your own numbers, your results have gotten better through multi-tabling, not worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Got your point there. I guess I should clarify. I wasn't making the same amount of money per day that I am now focusing on one table.

The BB/100 dropping but still being positive doesn't mean I was still making money when it includes stats from when I was single tabling. Not the best stat to use to prove my point b/c it wasn't exclusive to MT-ing.

[crimhead]

[ QUOTE ]


PS How do you quote someone in your response?

[/ QUOTE ]

Use the QUOTE button top right